A view of the death chamber from the witness room at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility shows an electric chair and gurney. (Photo by Mike Simons/Getty Images) On Sept. 30, Tennessee’s execution of Christa Pike failed after two lethal injections, which has resulted in Gov. Bill Lee suspending Tennessee’s remaining scheduled executions for 2026 and ordering an independent review. For Ohio, this failed execution adds urgency to the debate over whether changing execution methods can address the broader concerns about capital punishment or whether the state should abolish it altogether.
Recently, Gov. Mike DeWine has called on lawmakers to repeal the death penalty, more than four decades after helping write the law that reinstated it in 1981. After working within the system as a legislator, attorney general, and governor, DeWine now says capital punishment no longer serves its intended purpose, and recent events in Tennessee have pushed the issue to the forefront.
His reversal places a basic question before the Ohio General Assembly: Does the death penalty make the state safer? The evidence concerning deterrence remains unsettled. In 2012, the National Research Council concluded that existing studies could not establish whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates, and as a result, advised policymakers not to use that research when judging the deterrent value of the death penalty. DeWine has similarly said he no longer believes Ohio’s experience supports the deterrence argument that once shaped his position.
Ohio has not conducted an execution since July 2018. Since that time, the state has struggled to obtain lethal-injection drugs without risking access to medications used throughout its prison system. Ohio House Bill 36 would add nitrogen hypoxia as an execution method. In contrast, some other states, such as South Carolina, have considered or adopted firing squads. Supporters view alternative methods as a way to carry out lawful sentences. At the same time, opponents contend that each substitute creates additional legal, logistical, and ethical disputes without addressing broader concerns about capital punishment.
Cost is another part of the debate, as capital cases generally involve specialized representation, separate sentencing proceedings, automatic review, and extended appeals. Studies consistently show that the death penalty is significantly more expensive than life imprisonment, with recent estimates around the country ranging from 2.5 to 5 times the cost. While this does not establish Ohio’s current costs, it does illustrate why lawmakers examining capital punishment often compare its expenses with life-without-parole cases and competing public-safety investments.
Application of the death penalty also varies by jurisdiction, as county prosecutors decide whether to pursue capital charges, and counties differ in their caseloads, resources, and charging practices. Researchers and legal organizations have also examined whether race, geography and access to experienced representation affect capital-case outcomes. Any assessment of Ohio’s system therefore requires state-specific information on where death sentences originate, how often capital charges are sought, and whether similarly situated cases receive comparable treatment.
Wrongful convictions add another consideration, as DNA testing, witness recantations, newly discovered evidence, forensic reviews, and findings of official misconduct have overturned convictions around the country. Post-conviction review can sometimes correct an erroneous prison sentence, although it cannot restore years of confinement, and an execution of someone later found to be innocent is irreversible. Supporters of capital punishment respond that extensive appellate review is designed to identify errors before a sentence is carried out; critics, however, question whether any human system can eliminate that risk.
